i have a std::vector, namely
vector<vector<vector> > > mdata;
i want pass data from my mdata vector to the GSL function
gsl_spline_init(gsl_spline * spline, const double xa[], const double ya[], size_t size);
as ya. i already figured out that i can do things like
gsl_spline_init(spline, &(mgrid.front()), &(mdata[i][j][k].front()), mgrid.size());
this is fine if i want to pass the data from mdata for fixed i,j to gsl_spline_init().
however, now i would need to pass along the first dimension of mdata, so for fixed j,k.
i know that for any two fixed indices, all vectors along the remaining dimensions have the same length, so my vector is a 'regular cube'. so the offset between all the values i need should be the same.
of course i could create a temporary vector
int j = 123;
int k = 321;
vector<double> tmp;
for (int i = 0: i < mdata.size(); i++)
tmp.push_back(mdata[i][j][k]);
gsl_spline_init(spline, &(mgrid.front()), &(tmp.front()), mgrid.size());
but this seems too complicated. perhaps there is a way to achieve my goal with pointer arithmetic?
any help is greatly appreciated :)
You really can't do that without redesigning the array consumer function gsl_spline_init() - it relies on the data passed being a contiguous block of data. This is not the case with you three-level vector - not only it is a cube but also each level has a separate buffer allocated on heap.
This can't be done. Not only with vectors, but even with plain arrays only the last dimension is a contiguous block of data. If gsl_spline_init took an iterator instead of array, you could try to craft some functor to choose appropriate data but I'm not sure it's worth trying. No pointer arithmetic can help you.
Related
I've got some data structured as a multi-dimensional array, i.e. double[][], and I need to pass it to a function that expects a single linear array of double[] along with dimensional metadata for the multi-dimensional representation.
For example, I might have a 3 x 5 multidimensional array, which I need to pass as a 15-element flat array along with height and width parameters so that the function knows it is a 3x5 array rather than a 5x3 array.
The function will then return a flat array and size metadata, which I need to use to convert the data back into a multidimensional type.
I believe the data layout in memory is exactly the same for both the flat and multi-dimensional representations; the only difference is how the indexing operations are performed. So I'd like to do the "conversion" with typecasting rather than copying the array values.
What's the most correct and readable way to typecast between multidimensional and flat arrays of the same total size?
I actually know what the dimensions of the multi-dimensional array will be at compile time. The array sizes aren't dynamic.
The most correct way has been given by #Maxim Egorushkin and #ypnos: double *flat = &multi[0][0];. And it will work fine with any decent compiler. But unfortunately is not valid C++ code and invokes Undefined Bahaviour.
The problem is that for an array double multi[N][M]; (N and M being compile time contant expressions), &multi[0][0] is the address of the first element of an array of size M. So it is legal to do pointer arithmetics only up to M. See this other question of mine for more details.
What's the most correct and readable way to typecast between multidimensional and flat arrays of the same total size?
The address of the first array element coincides with the address of the array. You can pass around the address of the first element, no casting is necessary.
I would assume the most popular way to do it is:
double *flat = &multi[0][0];
This is how it is done in C, and you do operate with simple C arrays.
You could also have a look at std::array in your use case (dimensions known at compile time), but that one is not multi-dimensional, so if you would cascade it, you would lose the contiguous layout.
You can use cast to a reference to an array. This require to use some fancy C++ type syntax but in return it allows to use all features that work on arrays, like for each loop.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
static constexpr size_t x = 5, y = 3;
unsigned multiArray[x][y];
for (size_t i = 0; i != x; ++i)
for (size_t j = 0; j != y; ++j)
multiArray[i][j] = i * j;
static constexpr size_t z = x * y;
unsigned (&singleArray)[z] = (unsigned (&)[z])multiArray[0][0];
for (const unsigned value : singleArray)
cout << value << ' ';
cout << endl;
return 0;
}
Take into account that this and other methods basing on casts work only with real multi-dimensional arrays. If it is an array of arrays (like unsigned **multiArray;), it isn't allocated in a continuous block of memory and a cast cannot bypass that.
I have got a class that represents a 2D map with size 40x40.
I read some data from sensors and create this map with marking cells if my sensors found something and I set value of propablity of finding an obstacle. For example when I am find some obstacle in cell [52,22] I add to its value for example to 10 and add to surrounded cells value 5.
So each cell of this map should keep some little value(propably not bigger). So when a cell is marked three times by sensor, its value will be 30 and surronding cells will have 15.
And my question is, is it worth to use casual array or is it better to use vector even I do not sort this cells, dont remove them etc. I just set its value, and read it later?
Update:
Actually I have in my header file:
using cell = uint8_t;
class Grid {
private:
int xSize, ySize;
cell *cells;
public:
//some methods
}
In cpp :
using cell = uint8_t;
Grid::Grid(int xSize, int ySize) : xSize(xSize), ySize(ySize) {
cells = new cell[xSize * ySize];
for (int i = 0; i < xSize; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < ySize; j++)
cells[x + y * xSize] = 0;
}
}
Grid::~Grid(void) {
delete cells;
}
inline cell* Grid::getCell(int x, int y) const{
return &cells[x + y * xSize];
}
Does it look fine?
I'd use std::array rather than std::vector.
For fixed size arrays you get the benefits of STL containers with the performance of 'naked' arrays.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/array
A static (C-style) array is possible in your case since the size in known at compile-time.
BUT. It may be interesting to have the data on the heap instead of the stack.
If the array is a global variable, it's ugly an bug-prone (avoid that when you can).
If the array is a local variable (let say, in your main() function), then a stack overflow may occur. Well, it's very unlikely for a 40*40 array of tiny things, but I'd prefer have my data on the heap, to keep things safe, clean, and future-proof.
So, IMHO you should definitely go for the vector, it's fast, clean and readable, and you don't have to worry about stack overflow, memory allocation, etc.
About your data. If you know your values are storable on a single byte, go for it !
An uint8_t (same as unsigned char) can store values from 0 to 255. If it's enough, use it.
using cell = uint8_t; // define a nice name for your data type
std::vector<cell> myMap;
size_t size = 40;
myMap.reserve(size*size);
side note: don't use new[]. Well, you can, but it has no advantages over a vector. You will probably only gain headaches handling memory manually.
Some advantages of using a std::vector is that it can be dynamically allocated (flexible size, can be resized during execution, etc) and can be passed/returned from a function. Since you have a fixed size 40x40 and you know you have one element int in every cell, I don't think it matters that much in your case and I would NOT suggest using a class object std::vector to process this simple task.
And here is a possible duplicate.
I am developing a program in which one of the task is to read points (x,y and z) from a text file and then store them in an array. Now the text file may contain 10^2 or even 10^6 points, depending upon the text file user selects. Therefore I am defining a dynamic array.
For allocating a dynamic 2D array, I wrote as below and it works fine:
const int array_size = 100000;
float** array = new float* [array_size];
for(int i = 0; i < array_size; ++i){
ary[i] = new float[2]; // 0,1,2 being the columns for x,y,z co-ordinates
}
After the points are saved in the array, I write the following to deallocate the unallocated memory :
for (int i = 0; i < array_size; i++){
delete [] array[i];
}
delete [] array;
and then my program stops working and shows "Project.exe stopped working".
If I don't deallocate, the program works just fine.
In your comment you say 0,1,2 being the columns for x,y,z co-ordinates, if that's the case, you need to be allocating as float[3]. When you allocate an array of float[N], you are allocating a chunk of the memory of the size N * sizeof(float), and you will index them in the array from 1 to N - 1. Therefore if you need indeces 0,1,2, you will need to allocate a memory of the size 3 * sizeof(float), which makes it float[3].
Because other than that, I can compile and run the code without an error. If you fix it and still get an error, it might be your compiler problem. Then try to decrease 100000 to a small number and try again.
You are saying that you are trying to implement a dynamic array, this is what std::vector does and I would highly recommend that you use it. This way you are using something from the standard library that's extremely well tested and you won't run into issues by essentially trying to roll your own version of std::vector. Additionally this approach wraps memory better as it uses RAII which leverages the language to solve a lot of memory management issues. This has other benefits too like making your code more exception safe.
Also if you are storing x,y,z coordinates consider using a struct or a tuple, I think that enhances readability a lot. You can typedef the coordinate type too. Something like std::vector< coord_t > is more readable to me.
(Thanx a lot for suggestions!!)
Finally I am using vectors for the stated problem for reasons as below:
1.Unlike Arrays (not array object ofcourse), I don't need to manually deallocate unallocated memory.
2.There are numerous built in methods defined under vector class
Vector size can be extended at later stages
Below is how I used 2D Vector to store points (x,y,z co-ordinates)
Initialized (allocated memory) a 2D vector:
vector<vector<float>> array (1000, vector<float> array (3));
Where 1000 is the number of rows, and 3 is the number of columns
Once declared, values can be passed simply as:
array[i][j] = some value;
Also, at later stage I declared functions taking vector arguments and returning vectors as:
vector <vector <float>> function_name ( vector <vector <float>>);
vector <vector <float>> function_name ( vector <vector <float>> input_vector_name)
{
return output_vector_name_created_inside_function
}
Note: This method crates a copy of vector while returning, use pointer to return by reference. Even though mine is not working when I return vector by reference :(
For multi arrays I recommended use boost::multi_array.
Example:
typedef boost::multi_array<double, 3> array_type;
array_type A(boost::extents[3][4][2]);
A[0][0][0] = 3.14;
I have a for-loop that needs to incrementally add columns to a matrix. The size of the rows is known before entering the for-loop, but the size of the columns varies depending on some condition. Following code illustrates the situation:
N = getFeatureVectorSize();
float **fmat; // N rows, dynamic number of cols
for(size_t i = 0; i < getNoObjects(); i++)
{
if(Object[i] == TARGET_OBJECT)
{
float *fv = new float[N];
getObjectFeatureVector(fv);
// How to add fv to fmat?
}
}
Edit 1 This is how I temporary solved my problem:
N = getFeatureVectorSize();
float *fv = new float[N];
float *fmat = NULL;
int col_counter = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < getNoObjects(); i++)
{
if(Object[i] == TARGET_OBJECT)
{
getObjectFeatureVector(fv);
fmat = (float *) realloc(fmat, (col_counter+1)*N*sizeof(float));
for(int r=0; r<N; r++) fmat[col_counter*N+r] = fv[r];
col_counter++;
}
}
delete [] fv;
free(fmat);
However, I'm still looking for a way to incrementally allocate memory of a two-dimensional array in C/C++.
To answer your original question
// How to add fv to fmat?
When you use float **fmat you are declaring a pointer to [an array of] pointers. Therefore you have to allocate (and free!) that array before you can use it. Think of it as the row pointer holder:
float **fmat = new float*[N];
Then in your loop you simply do
fmat[i] = fv;
However I suggest you look at the std::vector approach since it won't be significantly slower and will spare you from all those new and delete.
better - use boost::MultiArray as in the top answer here :
How do I best handle dynamic multi-dimensional arrays in C/C++?
trying to dynamically allocate your own matrix type is pain you do not need.
Alternatively - as a low-tech, quick and dirty solution, use a vector of vectors, like this :
C++ vector of vectors
If you want to do this without fancy data structures, you should declare fmat as an array of size N of pointers. For each column, you'll probably have to just guess at a reasonable size to start with. Dynamically allocate an array of that size of floats, and set the appropriate element of fmat to point at that array. If you run out of space (as in, there are more floats to be added to that column), try allocating a new array of twice the previous size. Change the appropriate element of fmat to point to the new array and deallocate the old one.
This technique is a bit ugly and can cause many allocations/deallocations if your predictions aren't good, but I've used it before. If you need dynamic array expansion without using someone else's data structures, this is about as good as you can get.
To elaborate the std::vector approach, this is how it would look like:
// initialize
N = getFeatureVectorSize();
vector<vector<float>> fmat(N);
Now the loop looks the same, you access the rows by saying fmat[i], however there is no pointer to a float. You simply call fmat[i].resize(row_len) to set the size and then assign to it using fmat[i][z] = 1.23.
In your solution I suggest you make getObjectFeatureVector return a vector<float>, so you can just say fmat[i] = getObjectFeatureVector();. Thanks to the C++11 move constructors this will be just as fast as assigning the pointers. Also this solution will solve the problem of getObjectFeatureVector not knowing the size of the array.
Edit: As I understand you don't know the number of columns. No problem:
deque<vector<float>> fmat();
Given this function:
std::vector<float> getObjectFeatureVector();
This is how you add another column:
fmat.push_back(getObjectFeatureVector());
The number of columns is fmat.size() and the number of rows in a column is fmat[i].size().
I need to create a large two dimensional array of objects. I've read some related questions on this site and others regarding multi_array, matrix, vector, etc, but haven't been able to put it together. If you recommend using one of those, please go ahead and translate the code below.
Some considerations:
The array is somewhat large (1300 x 1372).
I might be working with more than one of these at a time.
I'll have to pass it to a function at some point.
Speed is a large factor.
The two approaches that I thought of were:
Pixel pixelArray[1300][1372];
for(int i=0; i<1300; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<1372; j++) {
pixelArray[i][j].setOn(true);
...
}
}
and
Pixel* pixelArray[1300][1372];
for(int i=0; i<1300; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<1372; j++) {
pixelArray[i][j] = new Pixel();
pixelArray[i][j]->setOn(true);
...
}
}
What's the right approach/syntax here?
Edit:
Several answers have assumed Pixel is small - I left out details about Pixel for convenience, but it's not small/trivial. It has ~20 data members and ~16 member functions.
Your first approach allocates everything on stack, which is otherwise fine, but leads to stack overflow when you try to allocate too much stack. The limit is usually around 8 megabytes on modern OSes, so that allocating arrays of 1300 * 1372 elements on stack is not an option.
Your second approach allocates 1300 * 1372 elements on heap, which is a tremendous load for the allocator, which holds multiple linked lists to chunks of allocted and free memory. Also a bad idea, especially since Pixel seems to be rather small.
What I would do is this:
Pixel* pixelArray = new Pixel[1300 * 1372];
for(int i=0; i<1300; i++) {
for(int j=0; j<1372; j++) {
pixelArray[i * 1372 + j].setOn(true);
...
}
}
This way you allocate one large chunk of memory on heap. Stack is happy and so is the heap allocator.
If you want to pass it to a function, I'd vote against using simple arrays. Consider:
void doWork(Pixel array[][]);
This does not contain any size information. You could pass the size info via separate arguments, but I'd rather use something like std::vector<Pixel>. Of course, this requires that you define an addressing convention (row-major or column-major).
An alternative is std::vector<std::vector<Pixel> >, where each level of vectors is one array dimension. Advantage: The double subscript like in pixelArray[x][y] works, but the creation of such a structure is tedious, copying is more expensive because it happens per contained vector instance instead of with a simple memcpy, and the vectors contained in the top-level vector must not necessarily have the same size.
These are basically your options using the Standard Library. The right solution would be something like std::vector with two dimensions. Numerical libraries and image manipulation libraries come to mind, but matrix and image classes are most likely limited to primitive data types in their elements.
EDIT: Forgot to make it clear that everything above is only arguments. In the end, your personal taste and the context will have to be taken into account. If you're on your own in the project, vector plus defined and documented addressing convention should be good enough. But if you're in a team, and it's likely that someone will disregard the documented convention, the cascaded vector-in-vector structure is probably better because the tedious parts can be implemented by helper functions.
I'm not sure how complicated your Pixel data type is, but maybe something like this will work for you?:
std::fill(array, array+100, 42); // sets every value in the array to 42
Reference:
Initialization of a normal array with one default value
Check out Boost's Generic Image Library.
gray8_image_t pixelArray;
pixelArray.recreate(1300,1372);
for(gray8_image_t::iterator pIt = pixelArray.begin(); pIt != pixelArray.end(); pIt++) {
*pIt = 1;
}
My personal peference would be to use std::vector
typedef std::vector<Pixel> PixelRow;
typedef std::vector<PixelRow> PixelMatrix;
PixelMatrix pixelArray(1300, PixelRow(1372, Pixel(true)));
// ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
// Size 1 Size 2 default Value
While I wouldn't necessarily make this a struct, this demonstrates how I would approach storing and accessing the data. If Pixel is rather large, you may want to use a std::deque instead.
struct Pixel2D {
Pixel2D (size_t rsz_, size_t csz_) : data(rsz_*csz_), rsz(rsz_), csz(csz_) {
for (size_t r = 0; r < rsz; r++)
for (size_t c = 0; c < csz; c++)
at(r, c).setOn(true);
}
Pixel &at(size_t row, size_t col) {return data.at(row*csz+col);}
std::vector<Pixel> data;
size_t rsz;
size_t csz;
};